If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Biblical arguments against "Flood Geology"

Conservative Christianity has been infected with the disease of "Flood Geology" ever since Morris and Whitcomb published "The Genesis Flood" around 1960. Most rebuttals of Flood Geology focus on the science. But I believe that the view has biblical problems as well.

Here I will focus on a few verses in Gen 8 and show how they are in conflict with fundamental claims of Flood Geology. I would appreciate any responses from those committed to Flood Geology (Jorge or others) as to how they get around these problems. I would also appreciate any additional biblical problems that people see with Flood Geology. I hope this to be primarily a biblical discussion, but since it relies on the "scientific" claims of Flood Geology, I believe this discussion belongs in a science forum.

(I would appreciate input from TEs as well if the moderators can allow it. But I do not want input from non-Christians, which is why this is not in the Natural Science section.)

Source: Gen 8:8-11, NET Bible

Gen. 8:8 Ά Then Noah sent out a dove to see if the waters had receded from the surface of the ground.
Gen. 8:9 The dove could not find a resting place for its feet because water still covered the surface of the entire earth, and so it returned to Noah in the ark. He stretched out his hand, took the dove, and brought it back into the ark.
Gen. 8:10 He waited seven more days and then sent out the dove again from the ark.
Gen. 8:11 When the dove returned to him in the evening, there was a freshly plucked olive leaf in its beak! Noah knew that the waters had receded from the earth.

First argument:
Note verse 9: "water still covered the surface of the entire earth". The Hebrew is "kal ha-aretz", "all of the earth" or "all of the land". This is the same grammatical construction used repeatedly for the Flood, which covered "all of the high mountains" and killed "all flesh". There is a tendency for us (especially YECs) to read "all" with a modern mindset and treat it as an absolute "all". But this is not how the Hebrews thought.

We can show this from the text itself. We do not need to rely on Hebrew scholars to tell us how the Hebrews thought; we can see it straight from the text. Just look a few verses earlier in the account:

Source: Gen 8:5, NET Bible

Gen. 8:5 The waters kept on receding until the tenth month. On the first day of the tenth month, the tops of the mountains became visible.

When Noah sent the dove out, the mountains were visible. (This is presumably why Noah sent out the dove, he saw the mountains and wanted to know if the waters had receded enough for the humans to leave the ark.). Thus, water did not cover the entire surface of the land when Noah sent out the dove in v. 8.

So why does the text say that water covered "all the land" in verse 9, when mountains were visible above the water? Clearly, "all" here is not used as an absolute "all". It is "all" from the perspective of the bird. the bird can presumably even see the mountains, but they are too far away for it to reach. From the bird's perspective, all of the land that it can possibly fly to is covered with water, so "all the land" is covered. "All" is from the perspective of the character in the story (the bird).

If this is the usage of "all" at the end of the Flood account, what about the beginning? I believe that this usage, in the context of the same account, should inform our interpretation of "all" at the beginning of the story as well. When water covers "all the high mountains" and kills "all flesh", I argue that we should read this as "all" in the eyes of the characters in the story, I.e. Noah and the people around him.

comments?

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."  Albert Einstein

Maybe the prototype of the story is not about water at all, but about hydrogen (or something different). And "the whole earth" is much bigger than or planet Earth. Our planet Earth is one of the mountains.

Gen. 8:8 Ά Then Noah sent out a dove to see if the waters had receded from the surface of the ground.
Gen. 8:9 The dove could not find a resting place for its feet because water still covered the surface of the entire earth, and so it returned to Noah in the ark. He stretched out his hand, took the dove, and brought it back into the ark.
Gen. 8:10 He waited seven more days and then sent out the dove again from the ark.
Gen. 8:11 When the dove returned to him in the evening, there was a freshly plucked olive leaf in its beak! Noah knew that the waters had receded from the earth.
Gen. 8:12 He waited another seven days and sent the dove out again, but it did not return to him this time.

Here we see a progression: first, the mountains are visible, but all land that the dove can reach is still covered with water. Second, the dove is able to pluck an olive leaf from a tree; the implication is that the water has receded enough to uncover some tree branches. Third, the dove does not return; the implication is that it has found a place to nest.

The implication is that trees have been covered by flood water, and as it recedes these trees are visible once again. These trees have not been buried under thousands of feet of sediment as Flood Geology teaches. The same trees that were growing before the Flood are still growing.

This seems to be a clear conflict between Flood Geology and the biblical text.

Comments?

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."  Albert Einstein

2 Peter 3:5-7,
. . .For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. . . .

. . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

. . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

2 Peter 3:5-7,
. . .For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. . . .

Gen 7:19 says that "all of the high mountains were covered". How do you get "Our current mountains are post Biblical flood" from this verse?

And I don't see how this addresses either of my two arguments or the text of Gen 8.

Can you please explain in more detail?

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."  Albert Einstein

Gen 7:19 says that "all of the high mountains were covered". How do you get "Our current mountains are post Biblical flood" from this verse?

It is found in these verses:

You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
the waters stood above the mountains.
At your rebuke they fled;
at the sound of your thunder they took to flight.
The mountains rose, the valleys sank down
to the place that you appointed for them.
You set a boundary that they may not pass,
so that they might not again cover the earth.
(Psalm 104:6-9 ESV)

You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
the waters stood above the mountains.
At your rebuke they fled;
at the sound of your thunder they took to flight.
The mountains rose, the valleys sank down
to the place that you appointed for them.
You set a boundary that they may not pass,
so that they might not again cover the earth.
(Psalm 104:6-9 ESV)

Sorry, but I have two major problems with this.

First:
Psalm 104 is generally classed as a "creation Psalm". Verses 1-2a seem to be talking about Day 1 of Genesis 1, verses 2b-5 about Day 2, and verses 6-9 about Day 3. Most commentators agree that vv6-9 are talking about creation; only a small minority believe this is talking about the Flood. When I studied this Psalm a few years ago, I found only one paper in a major theological journal which interpreted this as the Flood (and the author was not a theologian or a language scholar, but a hydraulic engineer named Henry Morris).

Second:
The Hebrew is somewhat ambiguous here. But after studying it myself from the Hebrew and looking at the arguments, I believe the NIV translation is preferable:

Psa. 104:6 You covered it with the watery depths as with a garment;
the waters stood above the mountains.
Psa. 104:7 But at your rebuke the waters fled,
at the sound of your thunder they took to flight;
Psa. 104:8 they flowed over the mountains,
they went down into the valleys,
to the place you assigned for them.
Psa. 104:9 You set a boundary they cannot cross;
never again will they cover the earth.

This translation fits the Hebrew grammar slightly better, and it continues the poetic theme of God as a warrior-king defeating His enemies. The waters are described poetically as a fleeing army which goes up the mountains and down the valleys in retreat.

Last edited by Kbertsche; 11-15-2015 at 06:54 PM.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."  Albert Einstein

Gen 7:19 says that "all of the high mountains were covered". How do you get "Our current mountains are post Biblical flood" from this verse?

And I don't see how this addresses either of my two arguments or the text of Gen 8.

Can you please explain in more detail?

Well first Genesis 7:19-20, ". . . And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that [were] under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. . . ."
The pre-flood interpretation is prior to the flood the mountains where under 15 cubits in height. As a result of the flood the mountains as we know them today were formed.

Understand this is an argument of interpretation. What is presented as the geological time scale is the flood record interpreted in such way to deliberately rule out the flood. For how the geological time scale is dated using radiometric dating see the McGraw Hill Science and Technology Encyclopedia. Only one sample is assigned for each strata age. The sample location and method is given. [As I remember.]

. . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

. . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

Well first Genesis 7:19-20, ". . . And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that [were] under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. . . ."
The pre-flood interpretation is prior to the flood the mountains where under 15 cubits in height.

Yes. And we can see in ch 8 that "all" is not being used as a universal term, but as a relative term. So in the context of the same Flood account, we must not insist that "all" in ch 7 is used as a universal term. It is more likely a relative term as well. This is the crux of my first argument.

Originally Posted by 37818

As a result of the flood the mountains as we know them today were formed.

Where does Scripture say or imply this? Why would 15 cubits of water on top of mountains form new mountains?

Originally Posted by 37818

Understand this is an argument of interpretation. What is presented as the geological time scale is the flood record interpreted in such way to deliberately rule out the flood.

But if the geologic time scale is due to the flood, all trees would have been buried under thousands of feet of sediment. Where could the dove have found a tree to pluck an olive leaf or branch from in ch 8? This is the crux of my second argument.

Originally Posted by 37818

For how the geological time scale is dated using radiometric dating see the McGraw Hill Science and Technology Encyclopedia. Only one sample is assigned for each strata age. The sample location and method is given. [As I remember.]

No, establishing the geologic time scale is more complex than this, and many samples are taken.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."  Albert Einstein

Psalm 104 is generally classed as a "creation Psalm". Verses 1-2a seem to be talking about Day 1 of Genesis 1, verses 2b-5 about Day 2, and verses 6-9 about Day 3.

You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
the waters stood above the mountains.
At your rebuke they fled;
at the sound of your thunder they took to flight.
The mountains rose, the valleys sank down
to the place that you appointed for them.
You set a boundary that they may not pass,
so that they might not again cover the earth.
(Psalm 104:6-9 ESV)

And God said, Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth. And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
(Genesis 1:11-13 ESV)